Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:57 pm    Post subject: Would You Pay More Than 100 USD For Older Lens? Reply with quote

We had a side discussion on another thread about willingness to pay more than $100 for a
used lens (keeping it narrowed to manual focus lenses only).

I understand that there are members who feel it is not worth it to spend over $100, and
others (like me) who would put out over $100.

I think it would be interesting and educational for our group
to get some opinions:

1. Would you NEVER pay more than $100 for a lens?
2. Would you pay over $100 for a lens you really want?
3. Which lens (name only 1-3 lenses if possible) would be worth paying more than $100 in your opinion?

Here are my answers:
1. No. I would pay more than $100 for lens.
2. Yes.
3. Sonnar 200/2.8
Sonnar 300/4
Flektogon 35/2.4


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

My answers:

1. No
2. Yes
3. Pentax A* 85/1.4, Voigtlander 125/2.5, Vivitar/Lester A. Dine 105 Macro
(don't have any of these jewels Crying or Very sad )


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Distagon 2.8/21 - only because I'd have to... LOL
Distagon 1.4/35 - as above.
Biotar 1.5/75 - already enjoy the privilege but if I didn't own it then the above applies.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, some great lens choices, and interesting that so far, you WOULD pay over $100 for the right lens.

Indianadinos, I certainly go along with the Voigtlander....nice.

Bob, you have my accolades! The Biotar 1.5/75! Holy cow! Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

  1. No
  2. Yes
    1. Pancolar MC 80/1.8
    2. MC Volna-9 50/2.8 Macro
    3. not sure... maybe S-M-C 85/1.8 Smile

I looked into my list of lenses (which includes prices I bought them for) and majority of the lenses I really like were cheaper than $100. A lot of more expensive lenses are more or less collectibles or lenses for very specific conditions. However, some of them are real gems and pieces of history Smile


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
Bob, you have my accolades! The Biotar 1.5/75! Holy cow! Laughing


It's everything that is said about it, and more, and is probably one of the few lenses that can stand the hype, and more. I have two - one M42, one Exakta, and will never sell either.

It's that good. Cool


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bob955i wrote:
Laurence wrote:
Bob, you have my accolades! The Biotar 1.5/75! Holy cow! Laughing


It's everything that is said about it, and more, and is probably one of the few lenses that can stand the hype, and more. I have two - one M42, one Exakta, and will never sell either.

It's that good. Cool


I'd give you over $100 for it Bob... Laughing

It is quite a testament that you have TWO of them. Now, you have me going to look up the lens on the Internet! See what you do?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no-X wrote:
  1. No
  2. Yes
    1. Pancolar MC 80/1.8
    2. MC Volna-9 50/2.8 Macro
    3. not sure... maybe S-M-C 85/1.8 Smile

I looked into my list of lenses (which includes prices I bought them for) and majority of the lenses I really like were cheaper than $100. A lot of more expensive lenses are more or less collectibles or lenses for very specific conditions. However, some of them are real gems and pieces of history Smile


As far as I'm concerned, you could make ANY lens shine. Your work speaks for itself.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. I would never pay a lens less than 100$ anymore
2. I will always pay more than 100$ for the lens I want
3. most of my lenses worth paying more than 100$

but I would like to find a biotar 75:1.5 for less than 100$ Razz


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
I'd give you over $100 for it Bob... Laughing

It is quite a testament that you have TWO of them. Now, you have me going to look up the lens on the Internet! See what you do?


You forgot to add a zero to your offer Larry.... Laughing

Attila has at least three of them I believe. Laughing

@ poilu: I'd settle for either the D21 or D35 for less than $100...

I'm not planning on holding my breath here though. Laughing


Last edited by bob955i on Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence: Thank you. But I think at least last months aren't so hot...
poilu wrote:
1. I would never pay a lens less than 100$ anymore

I can sell some Industars to you Smile


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Embarassed My list tells the answers Embarassed

Mostly I think like Poilu.
There are many exceptions like the Yashica ML line and some russians.
At the end of the day most of the lenses that make it on my camera(s) cost more then $100(s).
They are better period.

As to AF lenses over $100.
I don't have one AF lens (I had one Eos 24-105 L and sold it after one try).

Is it snobbery. No, I just prefer to focus myself mostly with a RF in fact.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Attila has at least three of them I believe. Laughing


Embarassed actually four one pre-war , two 1951 slim and one M42 Fat

All lenses what I would keep over 300 USD , I don't understand really if somebody pay 1000 USD for a good camera and not willing to pay at least half of camera value for a good lens.

I have many valuable rare lenses and many others my dream like CZ 135mm f2, CZ Tessar 300mm f4, CZ 35mm f1.4, Pancolar 75mm f1.4,CZJ 500mm f4 etc, etc.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. no
2. yes
3. Vivitar 200mm/3.0, Konica Hexanon 85mm/1.8, can't think of anything else just now.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cledry wrote:
1. no
2. yes
3. Vivitar 200mm/3.0, Konica Hexanon 85mm/1.8, can't think of anything else just now.


Konica Hexanon 85mm also on my wish list long time ago.

I had two Vivitar 200mm f3.0 I sold both , "poor" man Nikkor 180mm f2.8 , this is true. Nice lens but not reach Nikkor or CZJ Sonnar.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i WOULD PAY MORE THAN 100 FOR:

1- Any LEICA M lens (specially 50/2, 75/1,4, 21/3,4, 2,8/35 w/eyes)

2- Biotar 1,5/75

3- Olympia - Sonnar 2,8/180

4- Can be a forth? Thanks. Konica 1,2/57.

The list continue. . . . . . . .

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good taste Wink I don't have any clue about Leica M series hopefully one day I able to test some of them.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. No
2. Yes and have several times
3. Volna 9
Helios 40 ( i have a "thing" for russian beauties)
Tamron SP 70-15mm 2.8 soft focus (just because)


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks. A M3 ds body is a good one (and cheap for the case)


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I would pay more than $100 for certain Canon FD lenses as I am still a film shooter. For others, I lose interest at $10 to $20 dollars, unless I can make money selling it to you guys!!

Actually, I wouldn't even do that. I spotted a lens for Luis a few weeks ago and sent it to him for my cost plus postage.

Bill


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. No. I would pay more than USD 100 for a lens.
2. Yes.
3. Cosina Voigtländer 90mm f/3.5 APO-Lanthar
Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0
Nikkor 20mm f/4 K (non-AI)

I also paid over 100 USD for some others; soe were worth it, some I would try to get for less nowadays, and some were not worth it. My third-most expensive lens was a 24-120 AF-S VR, which seemed like a good idea at the time but I am going to sell it as its no real use to me.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
i WOULD PAY MORE THAN 100 FOR:

1- Any LEICA M lens (specially 50/2, 75/1,4, 21/3,4, 2,8/35 w/eyes)

2- Biotar 1,5/75

3- Olympia - Sonnar 2,8/180

4- Can be a forth? Thanks. Konica 1,2/57.

The list continue. . . . . . . .

Rino.


Rino, I have heard that the 57/1.2 is not better than the slower 1.4 at about a tenth of the price.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. No
2. Yes
3. a coated TTH Cooke Aviar, a medium format Voigtlander Heliar f/3.5 (coated or not)

Veijo


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. No, I certainly could be induced to do it. Most likely if the price is considerably less than its probable market value. I look on some of my purchases as investments - which have done much better lately than my financial investments !

2. I would.

3.

CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8
CZJ Flektogon 20/4
CZJ Biotar 75/1.5 (which I did pay more than $100 for)

And any lens that seems a bargain !


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lenses I've paid more tha $100(US, I presume) for


Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8 (M42)
Pentacon 300mm f4 (M42)
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50mm f4 (P6)
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f2.4 (M42 -> thanks Attila)


Of course, if by old you mean just "used" well, then... I spent $900 for a Hartblei Super-Rotator 45mm f3.5 (P6) so, yeah, sure. I think $1K might be the upper limit, though :-DDD